Clinical, Physiological, and Psychological Correlates of the Improvement of Defecation during Menses in Women with Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> Little is known about the improvement in defecation frequently reported by women around menses. We aimed to describe clinical, physiological, and psychological correlates of this improvement in those with functional bowel disorders. <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> We recruited 478 consecutive premenopausal adult females with no indication of gynecologic or psychiatric disease, who were attending an outpatient functional bowel disorders clinic. Patients completed a Rome III questionnaire, psychological evaluation stool form, and a 10-point Likert scale for constipation, diarrhea, bloating, and abdominal pain. These patients underwent physiological tests, anorectal manometry, and colonic transit time and were classified according to the presence or the absence of improvement in defecation during menses. The reverse selection procedure was used for model selection during multivariate logistic regression where statistically significant variables (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01) remained in the adjusted model. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Ninety-seven patients (20%) reported easier defecation during menstruation. These patients were younger (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) but had similar body mass indices and psychological profiles as the other patients. Clinically, they only reported more frequent irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with constipation (<i>p</i> = 0.007), with harder stools (<i>p</i> = 0.005) and delayed left colon transit time (<i>p</i> = 0.002). No anorectal manometric parameter was different between the 2 groups. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Improvement of constipation during menses is mainly associated with younger age and constipation-IBS phenotype and not with functional constipation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".